6 comments:

Sir, you're Pro-Watson bias is palpable. I won't argue the merits of your claims, however, I will point out an inaccuracy in your commentary - Andy Barth is not being paid by the Kittleman campaign. Please verify your facts before you publish them. A simple search of Mr. Kittleman's campaign finance reports would have prevented you from making a false statement which reduces your credibility.

My pro-Watson perspective is known and a matter of public record. I am not a journalist; nor am I a dispassionate observer of HoCo politics. That said, I have been fair in my coverage of the Howard County Executive race.

What I said, around the 1:50 mark, is that "I believe that he [Barth] is a paid staffer for Kittleman. I emphasized "believe" for a reason. Do I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that he is either a paid staffer or paid consultant to that campaign? No but I have heard from multiple sources that he is - at the very least - providing counsel to the Kittleman effort.

Either paid or unpaid, it doesn't change the fact that Barth flacked for GOP candidates. That reality alone torpedoes his utility in such an ad. Rather than beginning his statement saying that he is a Democrat, an equally accurate descriptor from Barth would have been "Hi, I was a spokesperson for Bob Ehrlich." That is the best D that Kittleman could find? Very weak sauce.

Of course stating your affiliation with the Kittleman campaign would have been a nice touch from a transparency perspective, Mr. Gillette (assuming you are the same Robert Gillette who serves as his Director of Communications).

In any event, if Mr. Barth wants to post the names of the GOP campaigns for which he has provided counsel - either as a paid staffer/consultant or unpaid advisor - he is more than welcome to do so in this thread.